Seeking Sneak Attack clarification for 3.0...
- Thread starter Storyteller01
- Start date
Storyteller01
First Post
Hey folks.. tone it down. Hate to say it but 'my game, my rules'. I'm all for a debate, but I only asked a question about rules status. Let's be civil.
RigaMortus
Explorer
Storyteller01 said:
The fine folks here are only trying to give you their opinion because they don't want you to make any rash or not-well-thought-out decisions that could later affect your game, and possibly even the world! Just imagine, if you will, that the player of the Rogue agrees to your Sneak Attack house rule. Things go fine for awhile, but when combat happens the player begins to feel less and less useful. Suddenly it's not fun for the player and they begin to resent you. Eventually they find your post here on this board and being to resent the ENWorlder's for not being able to successfully see the error of your ways. The Rogue player decides to get even, hijacks a stealth bomber with a live nuclear weapon on it, demands an absorbant amount of money from the leaders of the free world, and then we have to have Christian Slater come to rescue us. All because you wouldn't try out the Sneak Attack Rules-As-Written. Do you really want that to happen?
Storyteller01
First Post
RigaMortus said:
No, I guess not
*begins a daily change for the codes to the stealth bomber*
Hypersmurf
Moderatarrrrh...
RigaMortus said:
We've got polymer banknotes here... they don't absorb at all
-Hyp.
Jhulae
First Post
You're the DM, so you're free to change it. Hopefully your players will be happy with it, and if so, great.
Me? I'd probably start looking for another campaign. I've played Rogues by RAW, and even with RAW, it's extremely hard to get *any* sneak attacks in, nevermind multiple. So many things are immune to it, and the fact you have to have somebody flanking or be invisible or whatnot against the things that *can* be affected by it, really makes it difficult if the DM is playing enemies to their best advantage.
If I were playing a high level rogue that finally managed to be in the right place at the right time against the right enemy only to be told "Nope! Just one SA!", I'd probably get up and walk out.
Me? I'd probably start looking for another campaign. I've played Rogues by RAW, and even with RAW, it's extremely hard to get *any* sneak attacks in, nevermind multiple. So many things are immune to it, and the fact you have to have somebody flanking or be invisible or whatnot against the things that *can* be affected by it, really makes it difficult if the DM is playing enemies to their best advantage.
If I were playing a high level rogue that finally managed to be in the right place at the right time against the right enemy only to be told "Nope! Just one SA!", I'd probably get up and walk out.
Kae'Yoss
First Post
Storyteller01 said:
I was just thinking that this looks like a situation that I saw only too often - on message boards as well as at the gaming table: DM doesn't understand a rule correctly, or he doesn't understand the whole rule, so he changes it. Later he discovers that he misread the thing all along and realizes that it isn't so bad. It happened to me as well.
I just wanted to tell you that:
Sneak Attacks are a conditional thing, you can't sneak attack every enemy all the time, so it's alright that they are more powerful than the fighter's regular attack when they actually do occur. Reasons for SA's being impossible include COUPE-Monsters (monters with the types construct, ooze, undead, plant, elemental. None of these are even subject to sneak attack), and lack of opportunities. On the other hand, the fighter's power attack and weapon damage will work just fine all the time, and likely have a better chance to hit.
Rogues cannot really afford to stay with the enemy for any length of time, anyway. Their relatively bad AC and low HP will mean that the enemy perceives an enemy that is both dangerous and fragile, meaning he becomes the prime target. So rogues are forced to retreat pretty quickly, while the fighter just keeps on hitting the enemy.
Also, the chances to do more than one sneak attack in a given round are even more limited than doing a SA in the first place. Hiding and normal invisibility are only good for one strike, as is feinting. You have to get hold of improved invisibility or use melee weapons and flank the enemy. While Improved Initiative is indeed a nice solution (though it will mean that the rogue has to put a lot of resources into it, multiclass into spellcaster or get the support of the groups arcanist), flanking will mean that is in striking distance no matter what (unless the enemy is defeated).
So, no, we cannot tell you how to rule, but we can show you how it is really not a problem.
RigaMortus said:
Free world? There's no such thing. You all belong to me and you know it.
Uhm, I mean....
Storyteller01
First Post
Suppose my concern isn't once per round as getting multiple SA's while flanking.
If you lose an Invisibility spell on a single attack, you can't SA any further because your seen. But if your opponents is distracted it's possible to nail them multiple times, even if he can react to you?? Near as I can see, being flanked doesn't mean losing your Dex.
You can SA a dragon (a critters who's senses and intelligence mean that said dragon knows where everyone on the field is, barring magic) multiple times because he's distracted by someone else on its opposite side?
Again, I guess it goes back to YMMV
If you lose an Invisibility spell on a single attack, you can't SA any further because your seen. But if your opponents is distracted it's possible to nail them multiple times, even if he can react to you?? Near as I can see, being flanked doesn't mean losing your Dex.
You can SA a dragon (a critters who's senses and intelligence mean that said dragon knows where everyone on the field is, barring magic) multiple times because he's distracted by someone else on its opposite side?
Again, I guess it goes back to YMMV
Last edited:
Those sneak attack dice look alot bigger than they are.
A level 5 rogue with TWF can potentially deal 2d6+6d6 damage + anything for strength (two short swords + two sneak attacks). Not shabby.
A level 5 fighter with a greatsword can potentially deal 2d6+strength+power attack+weapon specialization every round against any enemy type without suprise or flanking. Not shabby.
The fighter is going to have a +5 better chance to hit than the rogue (-2 for TWF, 2 points better BAB, and 1 point for the weapon focus feat the rogue can't afford to take with TWF). Let's make that a -5 power attack just to keep things fair.
So, 8d6 versus 2d6 + strength (x1.5) + 2 + 10.
If we assume the fighter and rogue have the same strength (unlikely), your average damage will look something like...
Rogue: 28 damage.
Fighter: 19 damage.
If we give the fighter a 4-point strength advantage (seems fair), we'd get:
Rogue: 28 damage
Fighter: 22 damage and 10% more likely to hit opponent (since that extra +2 can't be used with a power attack at level 5)
The rogue deals 9 more damage if the fighter has the same strength score as the rogue. A level 5 fighter will have, on average, about 12 HP more than a rogue, assuming identical constitution scores. The fighter will also have higher AC and, unlike the rogue, can continue attacking at full strength past the first round, regardless of flanking. The fighter will also deal far more damage on a critical hit, which will bring the fighter's average damage score up slightly, making the differences even smaller than what's listed here (the rogue's sneak attack dice don't benefit from a critical, so a critical from the rogue is virtually worthless).
So, if a level 5 rogue sneak-attacked a level 5 fighter, the fighter could counterattack and the rogue's best combat ability wouldn't be enough to make up for the fighter's higher HP, let alone the other advantages the fighter has in melee combat.
Sneak attack can be damaging, as any core class ability can be. It is far from broken. A flanking rogue is scary, but a rogue who is denied their dex bonus to AC after tumbling into the middle of melee is unlikely to survive more than a round of combat.
Oh, last note, on hiding and sneak attacks: AFAIK, it is true that once revealed, a rogue is no longer "hidden", but usually when attacking from hiding or attacking when invisible, the rogue will have the element of suprise. So while the first attack may reveal the rogue's presence, unless the target was previously aware of the rogue's presence (say, they were already in combat), the rogue would still gain benefits from attacking a flat-footed target.
A level 5 rogue with TWF can potentially deal 2d6+6d6 damage + anything for strength (two short swords + two sneak attacks). Not shabby.
A level 5 fighter with a greatsword can potentially deal 2d6+strength+power attack+weapon specialization every round against any enemy type without suprise or flanking. Not shabby.
The fighter is going to have a +5 better chance to hit than the rogue (-2 for TWF, 2 points better BAB, and 1 point for the weapon focus feat the rogue can't afford to take with TWF). Let's make that a -5 power attack just to keep things fair.
So, 8d6 versus 2d6 + strength (x1.5) + 2 + 10.
If we assume the fighter and rogue have the same strength (unlikely), your average damage will look something like...
Rogue: 28 damage.
Fighter: 19 damage.
If we give the fighter a 4-point strength advantage (seems fair), we'd get:
Rogue: 28 damage
Fighter: 22 damage and 10% more likely to hit opponent (since that extra +2 can't be used with a power attack at level 5)
The rogue deals 9 more damage if the fighter has the same strength score as the rogue. A level 5 fighter will have, on average, about 12 HP more than a rogue, assuming identical constitution scores. The fighter will also have higher AC and, unlike the rogue, can continue attacking at full strength past the first round, regardless of flanking. The fighter will also deal far more damage on a critical hit, which will bring the fighter's average damage score up slightly, making the differences even smaller than what's listed here (the rogue's sneak attack dice don't benefit from a critical, so a critical from the rogue is virtually worthless).
So, if a level 5 rogue sneak-attacked a level 5 fighter, the fighter could counterattack and the rogue's best combat ability wouldn't be enough to make up for the fighter's higher HP, let alone the other advantages the fighter has in melee combat.
Sneak attack can be damaging, as any core class ability can be. It is far from broken. A flanking rogue is scary, but a rogue who is denied their dex bonus to AC after tumbling into the middle of melee is unlikely to survive more than a round of combat.
Oh, last note, on hiding and sneak attacks: AFAIK, it is true that once revealed, a rogue is no longer "hidden", but usually when attacking from hiding or attacking when invisible, the rogue will have the element of suprise. So while the first attack may reveal the rogue's presence, unless the target was previously aware of the rogue's presence (say, they were already in combat), the rogue would still gain benefits from attacking a flat-footed target.
